Vida has warned that the dominance of white male literary critics “creates a dangerous lens through which the world is viewed”, after its annual survey found that female writers accounted for less than 40% of articles and reviews at more than half of major publications.

The feminist arts organisation, which examines the gender imbalance of both critics and authors whose books are reviewed, surveyed 15 major literary publications and found eight failed to reach gender parity in 2017. These included the London Review of Books at 26.9%, the New Yorker at 39.7%, the Times Literary Supplement at 35.9% and the New York Review of Books at 23.3%, down from 46.9% the previous year.

Just two of the major publications surveyed published 50% or more female writers – Granta and Poetry – while five published between 40% and 49.9% women, including Harper’s, the New York Times Book Review and the Paris Review.

Vida found that smaller literary magazines such as the New England Review and the Virginia Quarterly Review were “far more equitable” than larger publications, with 15 out of 24 publishing as many or more female writers as men. One, however, the Believer, published just 33% women, with no books written by women reviewed at all.

Vida said the numbers showed “some exciting improvement, as well as some stubborn and disappointing imbalances”, and stressed that “in a world dominated by imbalance, hardship and uncertainty, the voices we choose to uphold must reflect the voices of our populations”.

In the report’s introduction, Vida board members Amy King and Sarah Clark write: “When primarily white male voices are heard, it creates a dangerous lens through which the world is viewed,” emphasising that correcting the imbalance “isn’t censorship. It isn’t book burning. It is ensuring the creation of countless books by women and non-binary people, books that would never stand a chance in climates of violence that deny access, audience and the freedom and safety to create in the ways white cis men have enjoyed since the beginnings of American letters.”

King and Clark believe that the Vida count itself is making a difference to the status quo. Even though the numbers “may not radically change year to year”, other outlets and industries are starting to monitor the representation of women, while more writers are completing Vida’s annual survey.

“We hope this means that writers are saying they will no longer accept complicity in the exclusion of already marginalised writers by those with greater power and positionality,” write King and Clark. “So, while the number of women and non-binary people published in these top-tier publications may not yet be on our side, the number of us no longer willing to accept the normalcy of these frankly discriminating publishing practices is on our side … if need be, together we can burn this whole establishment to the ground and build something just and beautiful in its place.”